Congrats! Having done the transatlantic marriage thing, that is one aspect that I have been watching in particular.

I'm happy that this is a gain for gay folks... I'm REALLY happy it's a defeat for religious wackos.

Not only is there no actual logic to the response you just wrote to me but there aren't any sentences either.

If you were curious why I stopped replying to your emails it is because I remembered who you were.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Supreme Court drops DOMA. Barnes & Noble drops the Nook, and Food Channel drops Paula Deen. Bad week for bigots, books and butter.

Funny I don't recall doing that:upsidedow

Well, when the beagle reaches legal age (or gets parental consent), handles the required paper work and says, "I do", go for it:thumbsup

I never understood the religious getting behind it, it was never a religious thing, it was a state thing or government thing.
Prop 8 in California is dead. the only thing I can say about that is, thou it was stupid to have as a law, people voted on it and it shows what ever we vote on, a judge can override it, that scares me. Judges are not suppose to have that power.
Given time, and another vote, prop 8 would have been shot down by the voters

So, if a married couple never has children and one dies the other gets no benefits and the next of kin of the deceased gets all their stuff?

Personally I believe marriage is an archaic institution based on the idea that a woman can be the property of a man.

And I also believe health insurance is pretty much a scam.

I think we are all making progress in the wrong direction. Sure its easier to convince society that gays should marry than to convince them that NO ONE should marry, but it's still not progress. It's allowing gays to enter a party that should have been over long ago.

Clearly you do care what two "homos" do. If you didn't care you wouldn't care about them using the word marriage.

Jerry Nadler nailed it:

(yes, Jerry Nadler has a GFY account)

Until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 an interracial couple could not get married in my state. Left to the voters I don't know how long it would have taken and I'm almost certain that there would still be areas with whites only/blacks only drinking fountains and other facilities.

Prop 8 likely would have never passed had it not been for a shitload of out-of-state money, notably from the Mormon church.

Yes of course, but the difference here is that you can have a huge commitment without any document. It's the document that makes it a marriage under law! That's what I'm saying.

Is this normal in California or was he in some kind of ICU or something? The reason I ask is that last year I spent a few days in the hospital and over the years I have visited people in the hospital and never once has anyone even questioned who I was when I visit someone or restricted visitors from seeing me. In most cases I ask for a room and walk right in regardless of my relationship to them.

The only exception was when my mom had a pretty major surgery and afterward she was in an ICU ward. They didn't ask who my brother and I were, they just told us she was limited to two visitors at a time and that they preferred if we didn't stay longer than 30 minutes at a time.

You are wrong, that is EXACTLY the powerr that judges are supposed to have.

If they did not have it then the will of the people could violate the right rights of any minority simply by pushing a "majority rule", "democracy" bullshit argument.

If all the black and hispanic folks got together and voted that white people's votes only count 2/5s of a vote, it is that judge that stands between YOU and enslavement.

Now they can be just as worried about their pensions as we are...

yeah i laughed when i read his post.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

He just doesnt understand the role of the Supreme Court in our country and truthfully They usually end up getting things right over time...Roe V. Wade is another great example....the problem is that it usually takes them too long, but that is also good in that it also prevents them from ruling based on public opinion

http://www.feministapostasy.com/wp-c...orce-court.jpg

:stoned

ADG

Exactlamente :thumbsup

There, I fixed that for you:winkwink:

Just like separate but equal didn't work with the races it doesn't work with sexual orientation.

Marriage outside of the church, that is what we are talking about here, is nothing more than a legal contract.

Marriage gives my spouse and I legal protection against inheritance taxes. Social Security benefits. increased standard deductions on our taxes. These are the benefits that we are looking forward to enjoying.

But there are a plethora of other benefits regarding child credits, immigration not being forced to testify against your spouse just to name a few more.

We already have a civil union but at best that only allows visitation in a hospital, which we have both taken advantage of.

I don't give a rats ass about religion, the church or any imaginary omnipotent creatures in the sky or below.

The term marriage is what our society has come to call the benefits given to two adults that have entered into a legal binding agreement.

Just like I spend money that says "In God We Trust" despite the fact that I don't believe that there is a god I accept the fact that marriage is called what it is.

America is supposed to be a secular government. It's about time that religion is finally being removed from marriage.

In most places, I could see your point, but this is California, one of if not the most progressive state in the union. This state has always had civil rights at the fore front.

That said, I believe it's important that when one judge can dismiss 7 million votes, there is a problem. Those 7 million votes should have more weight than that.

I'm not agreeing with prop 8, hell remember prop 187? Same thing happened.

Oh I get it, basically, the Supreme Court didn't want to rule on prop 8 other than to say they are pushing it back to the lower courts.

Gay marriage still has a long way to go and it will get there, let them get married if they want. My problem is overturning votes. and that's all I have a problem with. Now illegal aliens can vote legally

good points

That isn't it at all. :2 cents:

I know your problem is overturning the idea of majority rule and that is EXACTLY what the supreme court was set up to do.

The supreme court is the check against mob rule. it doesnt matter if 99.999% of the people are in favor of something and vote it into law the job of the supreme court is to make sure that the rights guaranteed to all of the people, including that .001% are not violated. If they are violated then it doesnt matter what the majority thinks or wants, it's the whole equal protection thing, the government is NOT allowed to treat people differently because of race, religion or anything else.

So few people really understand the role of the Supreme Court but they really should because it is hugely influential on their lives in ways they dont understand.

LONG after President Obama and all the justices are gone this decision will effect people's lives in ways that we don't yet know, but falling back on the idea of equal protection (DOMA) was exactly the right decision.

As far as the constitutionality of prop 8 and similar laws are concerned that will be decided on another day when someone who does have standing brings forth the suit.

because I think the conservative religious have the same rights as you do? you guys always seems to pass right by that one... don't you...

it's all about what you want right? fuck everybody else... FYI I don't care one way or the other have no interest in gay affairs or religious issues. I'm just pointing out that you behave exactly as those you condemn as bigots...

and actually I want even curious due of the amount of unprofessionalism among webmasters and figured you fell into that category. :2 cents

using the word marriage is a deliberate attack against the conservative family values groups. I don't think gay people have any more right to attack conservative family values , then conservative family values do to attack the gays. do you disagree with that? :2 cents:

those are good points...

How exactly is using the word marriage an attack on conservative groups?

It is conservative groups that are trying to tell gay couples that they can't be married.

I don't have a problem with DOMA getting shut down by the supreme court,

What I had a problem with was the one judge ruling on prop 8, one judge shouldn't have that power

I believe the conservative groups are saying that a man and a man can't be married because the definition of marriage is a man and a woman... that is the definition of marriage that has been established continually though antiquity...

I haven't seen any commentary or disagreements with gay civil unions coming out of the conservative camp.. you?

seems to me the ONLY controversy is the use of the word marriage define homosexual unions.

what would be wrong with gay couples in civil unions quietly going about their business with out public outrage and controversy? you see any issues with that?

They said prop 8 was unconstitutional, that way they didn't have to rule on the constitutionality of all states recognizing gay marriage. So that's exactly that

There is plenty of anti-gay sentiment regarding civil unions coming from the right wing. The more moderate of the right wingers have embraced civil unions recently because they didn't want to look like asses. If you don't believe me Google Conservatives against civil unions and you will find plenty of evidence.

As I stated in a different thread anytime you want to force a group of people to refer to themselves by a particular title you open them up to discrimination. That is what they gay marriage advocates are trying to avoid.

By saying that they want their marriage to be called a marriage and to be able to refer to themselves as married is not an attack on conservatives.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6062504448/h6D71F353/



Latent homosexual homophobia... :1orglaugh

:stoned

ADG

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type

I don't know what conservatives you are listening to, but I have heard plenty of them against civil unions.